BC - if all cameras had a finder like the Leica S2 or the Nikon F5 the world would be a better place to work in.This was and is the top of the optical mirror finder.I don´t think it can be done any better.

But I believe we will have other finders in the future, like the Zeiss Cinemizer or the Sony counterpart, off the camerano more forcing us to go down or step on ladders or hang off helicopters............

The OLED´s of the Sony HMZ T2 are already that good that they match or surpass a Pro Video finder like the Zacuto and this in 3D,maybe your wife will then take a look as soon as you can "walk around" with your eyes.Once these finders will run around 4k res I think optical finders are dead.

This is the next logical step and already visible - and working. Soon these will become much smaller, higher res and even more comfortable.This will allow a full concentration to the subject and give you a 100% match of the stuff that is recorded with your actual vision-in 3 D

I played with the 55mm/1.4 on a D800E. It's a beast as expected and is very well made with a very smooth MF action. It is bigger and heavier than the Contax 645AF 55mm.

IMO if a high end 35mm camera now requires expensive MF lenses with no VR to get the most out of it then it makes the camera less flexible and maybe less attractive since manual focus is not so easy with the small viewfinder. I guess it'll work better on a D4 or a 1DX with their larger finders

As a general comment if a lens is designed to be a portrait lens (as most 50mm are) then there is no real point in testing and comparing edge sharpness

Yair

35mm does not require expensive medium format lenses. MF lenses have a much larger image circle than needed on a 35mm System and as such are not optimized for asmaller sensor. MF lenses will not produce better results on a 24x36 sensor than a new Nikon or Canon lens designed specifically for the sensor size.

Also in that comparison an older Nikon lens was used, not the newer 50mm 1.4G.

Here is the difference:Older Nikon 1.4D at 1.4center frame

New 50mm 1.4G at 1.4center frame

Corner difference:D at 1.4 cornerG at 1.4 corner

As you can see there is a significant quality difference. Very close and probably matching the Zeiss 55mm.

IMO if a high end 35mm camera now requires expensive MF lenses with no VR to get the most out of it then it makes the camera less flexible and maybe less attractive since manual focus is not so easy with the small viewfinder. I guess it'll work better on a D4 or a 1DX with their larger finders

Yair

I don't think there will be a huge difference on a 1DX vs a 5dIIIThe difference in magnification is not large at all.

What you need to do is test manual focusing with a manual focusing optimized focusing screen. Both Nikon and Canon make special screens for manual focusing.

But if we are going to talk about manual focusing abilities there is no comparison between MFD and the D800.There are so many more options that assist with manual focusing with the D800. Face recognition assisted manual focus live view ... just to mention one.See my post on page 5 of this thread.

Most of my reason still stands. 35mm DSLR do not require manual focusing lenses, but if you do need or want to use manual focus the D800 offers far more precise manual focus support then MFD.

As previously stated in this thread

Quote

As far as focus checking the implementation on the IQ backs is nice, but hardly state of the art as far as on camera image review goes.On the D800 you can zoom in with one click using the center button of the multi controller on the back next to the screenand in a beat navigate quickly to any point.But there more to it than that. When the camera zooms in it automatically zooms into the area of the focus point that was used for the shoot.And that is either a manually chosen point or the automatically chosen points.What is also nice about it is that you still have the regular zoom in button that zooms into the center of the frame.This is very nice for fashion work. Set you focus point on the face/eyes. Then review the photo. One button pops right to the face while the other to the waist.Here is what I'm talking about.

With the focus point chosen being the one with the green dot when you zoom in with the multi function center button the displayautomatically moves to the face. Using the regular magnify button is zooms into the center of the frame.

But there is more. If you are shooting fashion even with manual focus the camera will also zoom into faces using face recognition regardless of where the face is.It will magnify the face choosing a crop that shows eyes and mouth regardless of the size of the face in the shot. You can then go even closer with one or two clicks.And there is even more to it. If there are more than one model in the shot you can jump instantly through all the faces in the shot.Not only is this useful for checking focus, but also useful for quickly checking for closed eyes etc in a large group. This face recognition in review (playback) mode works without interfering with other review functions and it's invoked by the front wheel that normally controls aperture. It's a seamless thumb and index finger thing.

... manual focus is not so easy with the small viewfinder. I guess it'll work better on a D4 or a 1DX with their larger finders

On the other hand, when manual focusing goes with having enough time to do it slowly and carefully, and maybe with a tripod, then the live view manual focus offered by modern CMOS sensors gives a vastly larger and more detailed image than any optical viewfinder. For example, using 10x magnification on a 3" diagonal, 800x600 rear screen is like viewing a portion of the full image as it would appear on a 30" diagonal, 8000x6000 screen, vastly exceeding the apparent image size and resolution of the secondary image from the ground glass in an OVF (which, it should be remembered, has far lower resolution that the lens or sensor provides). With a well-designed live view system (as on the Olympus E-M5, which is the only good example I have experience with) you can have touch screen selection of enlargement points allowing one to jump between full view and magnified views of various parts of the scene with a couple of screen taps and button presses.

In a peep-hole EVF, the apparent image size is ever greater --- almost like pressing your noise up against that imaginary 30" screen.

Funny I could swear I can remember you (FredBGG) touting the excellent performance of his Fuji lenses (designed for 6x8 with movement) as used on a 35mm dSLR.

I posted a comparison between a Fuji GX680 250mm f5.6 and a Canon 200mm 2.8The point of that posting was quite clear and not what you are implying.I posted that example to show the performance of Fuji GX680 lenses on 6 micron sensors to validate that the Fuji GX680 lenses would preform very well on a MFDB.

Also Doug before you bend this out of proportion there are a few things to keep in mind.The Fuji GX680 lenses may have a very large image circle, but they also have very large rear lens elements and the camera has a huge lens mount throat allowing for vast lens design freedom.

Also the comparison made was with an inexpensive Canon lens. ($ 700 today) vs a Fuji gx680 lens that that adjusted for inflationwould be a $ 6000 lens.

Then you need to consider that the aperture used was comparing the lenses at 5.6 thus the Canon has depth of field abilities that the MF lens on the Canon would never be able to match.

The other point of using Fuji gx680 lenses on a DSLR is to get tilt shift ability on focal lengths such as 150mm and above.

I have never said that a Fuji gx680 lens would be better than a high end 35mm system lens.

On the other hand, when manual focusing goes with having enough time to do it slowly and carefully, and maybe with a tripod, then live view manual focus gives a vastly larger and mote detailed image than any optical viewfinder. For example, using 10x magnification on a 3" diagonal, 800x600 rear screen is like viewing a portion of the full image as it would appear on a 30" diagonal, 8000x6000 screen, vastly exceeding the apparent image size and resolution of the secondary image from the ground glass in an OVF (which, it should be remembered, has far lower resolution that the lens or sensor provides). With a well-designed live view system (as on the Olympus E-M5 for example) you can have touch screen selection of enlargement points allowing one to jump between full view and magnified views of various parts of the scene with a couple of screen taps and button presses.

In a peep-hole EVF, the apparent image size is ever greater --- almost like pressing your noise up against that imaginary 30" screen.

But what fascinates me is the number of MF users who particularly emphasize the advantage of the big, bright image in the optical viewfinder. What happens if and when EVFs get good enough in dynamic range and such to be a fully satisfactory alternative (or adjunct) to the OVF? Because there is no relationship beween the size/brightness of an EVF image and the size of the sensor: even a Micro Four Thirds camera could have an EVF with an image size as big as any ever seen on an SLR, if there were sufficient demand for that. And big, beautiful hot-shoe mounted EVF's could also be offered as accessories for many current SLR's, using HDMI out.

I'm very practical when it comes to technology both for my own personal use and for recommendations for clients. I don't care how it's done, just what the result is and what the experience is along the way to the result.

The day that an EVF produces a viewing/shooting experience on par with an OVF I think most MF shooters would be glad to use it. As of today that is not my experience in the situations in which I shoot or most of our clients shoot in. Though it is the case in some situations already (e.g. very low light an EVF can leverage the ISO of the sensor to show you an image with appropriate brightness rather than a dark OVF).

Right now I vastly prefer the experience of optically looking directly through a lens. However, it's not the method I care about, or the technology underlying it, only the resulting experience.

My gut says it will be several more years until EVFs can match the OVF in both technical and visceral-impact/visual-ergonomics/scene-feeling. But it could be a month from now. Who knows with technology.

IMO if a high end 35mm camera now requires expensive MF lenses with no VR to get the most out of it then it makes the camera less flexible.

Yair

Interesting that you mention VR (image stabilization) and that it's needed to make the most out of a lens.There is no VR or image stabilization with Phase/Mamiya cameras, Hasselblad, Lieca MF or nearly all MF Pentax.Yet all the MF vendors tout 35mm DSLR handeling and hand held use. Interesting to hear that a MFD rep states that VR is required toget the most out of a lens. Something I have been saying for quite some time when it comes to working off a tripod.

The day that an EVF produces a viewing/shooting experience on par with an OVF I think most MF shooters would be glad to use it. As of today that is not my experience in the situations in which I shoot or most of our clients shoot in. Though it is the case in some situations already (e.g. very low light an EVF can leverage the ISO of the sensor to show you an image with appropriate brightness rather than a dark OVF).

Right now I vastly prefer the experience of optically looking directly through a lens. However, it's not the method I care about, or the technology underlying it, only the resulting experience.

My gut says it will be several more years until EVFs can match the OVF in both technical and visceral-impact/visual-ergonomics/scene-feeling. But it could be a month from now. Who knows with technology.

But it ain't today IMO.

Yes but today you can have both a very good OVF and electronic viewfinders, HDMI... both on camera and off camera.I sometimes will step away from the camera with a hand held HDMI screen that comes with me and direct the model or portraitsubject when I want them looking off camera and they can see my visual instructions. I can walk upto them make an adjustmentto something... step back and shoot wirelessly while the camera keeps AF focus with face recognition....... it's like having a virtualcamera man when you want to direct more.

Speaking of manual focus, what the hell happened to split and cross prisms on the ground glass in cameras. I would really like it if they brought them back. I had to have a custom one made for my canon.

"Photography is one percent inspiration and ninety-nine percent moving furniture." Arnold Newman“Don't bother just to be better than your contemporaries or predecessors. Try to be better than yourself.” William Faulkner

Interesting that you mention VR (image stabilization) and that it's needed to make the most out of a lens.There is no VR or image stabilization with Phase/Mamiya cameras, Hasselblad, Lieca MF or nearly all MF Pentax.Yet all the MF vendors tout 35mm DSLR handeling and hand held use. Interesting to hear that a MFD rep states that VR is required toget the most out of a lens. Something I have been saying for quite some time when it comes to working off a tripod.

I am not stating anything I'm expressing an opinion and am questioning the benefit of using such a lens on a high MP 35mm body. For me using a DSLR is about flexibility and speed. I want good zooms and good AF and good high iso and combining these will often require VR. I did not say that you need VR to get the most out of the lens...rather out of the body...

If I need to focus manually I want to be able to SEE it through the finder. If I need to change the focusing screen every time I change a lens then I'm loosing another benefit of DSLR, but that's just me I guess...

As a friendly comment Fred If you want to be taken seriously you should read others' posts before you fill up the page with yours...

If I need to change the focusing screen every time I change a lens then I'm loosing another benefit of DSLR, but that's just me I guess...

No need to change the focusing screen every time you change the lens. The AF system is no affected by the manual focus optimized focusing screen,The AF sensors are below the focusing screen and the Live view focusing excludes the OVF.Also cropping lines and other in viewfinder features are above the focusing screen.

I am not stating anything I'm expressing an opinion and am questioning the benefit of using such a lens on a high MP 35mm body. For me using a DSLR is about flexibility and speed. I want good zooms and good AF and good high iso and combining these will often require VR. I did not say that you need VR to get the most out of the lens...rather out of the body...

If I need to focus manually I want to be able to SEE it through the finder. If I need to change the focusing screen every time I change a lens then I'm loosing another benefit of DSLR, but that's just me I guess...

As a friendly comment Fred If you want to be taken seriously you should read others' posts before you fill up the page with yours...

"I did not say that you need VR to get the most out of the lens...rather out of the body..." regardless of how you put it or call it the image stabalization is in the lens and the lens and body work together. image stabalizationreduces camera shake thus making the sharp image the lens produces recordable. While at low shutter speeds this has a dramatic effect that is even visable from far away at higher speeds like 1/60th or so the effect will be less dramatic but will significantly help keep lens sharpness so it can be recorded. With the high resolution of cameras today image stabalization is a significant advantage for just about any hand held work.Even the steadiest hand will have some movement... maybe not enough to smear the image, but enough of reduce some sharpness.

It's a new design, "opening up" an existing design by 2.5 stops is not possible...

I hope that they finally got some common sense and produce this lens themselves - compromising another design by mediocre mechanical quality or sample variation for a so-called reference line-up makes little sense, since the target audience already accepts bigger, heavier and expensive lenses - no need for compromises...

Unless the original design was already capable (mechanically & optically) of going to f1.2 but was physically limited to f3.5 due to vignetting/ CA/ soft edges...which won't be so much of a problem with the 35mm chips...

The 45mm, for example, was an f2.8 lens and it used the same basic barrel as the 55mm/f3.5...

So you were saying that the lens Carl Zeiss designed was capable of f1.2 but was physically limited to f3.5.....

..... If Carl Zeiss had some how magically figured out how to make a 55mm 1.2 that was so compact i'm pretty sure they would have put it on the market even if it were soft at the edges stopping down would have done the same as your suggested "physical limiting",but at the same time it would have has the magic of a super shallow depth of field lens for artsy purposes. Maybe they would have added some special indication to the apertures above 3.5 as "special purpose" or something.... Would have been an incredible environmental portrait lenswould not matter if it's soft at the edges right... aren't you the one that said this to.....

Fred - are you saying the Fuji 250/5.6 would be $6K now if new (and adjusting for inflation)?

The same lens that can be picked up for not much more than 10% of that price second hand now?

I knew the 680 was a bargain, but never appreciated how much of a bargain!

Kind regards,

Gerald.

Yes the going price for Fuji gx680 lenses is really good and an excellent deal for a studio side kick to a MFDB system for someone that wantsa nice spread of Tilt Shift lenses and 6x8cm film SLR.

For the price of one tilt shift MF lens you can get a whole GX680 system.. a good spread of lenses and an adapter for your digital backfrom Kapture group.

On top of that you can have many viewfinder options that make using tilt shift much easier.

There is even a stitch back made by kapture group that can give you a virtual sensor twice the size of the biggest MF backswhich is great for still lifes and landscapes and all in an SLR... though rather big.

I guess it's quite possible to adopt a DSLR to the shooting style needed. You can use it with image stabilization and zooms, when appropriate and with high end primes when needed. In my view you probably need tripod, MLU, and live view focusing to extract best quality from DSLRs and that essentially precludes speedy work.

Regarding viewfinders, an MF camera has a potential to collect more photons, as the senor is larger. So an MF camera with a f/2.8 lens will collect more photons than a DSLR with f/2.8 lens, it takes the DSLR an f/1.4 lens to collect as many photons.

The focusing screens of todays DSLR are intended to be used with AF. They can be changed, but it is possible that they may loose registration.

Large aperture lenses generally have some focus shift, so optimum focus at f/1.4 is different from say optimal focus at f/2.8.

The way I see it, a DSLR can be used for almost any kind of shooting, so it is a very flexible device.

If you consider economy, something that matters to a lot of people, you can have two DSLR bodies, and dual sets of lenses (like 14-24/2.8, 24-70/2.8, 70-200/2.8 ) and a bunch of Zeiss primes for the cost of a single medium format kit.

On the other hand the medium format kit may be a good long time investment.

I am not stating anything I'm expressing an opinion and am questioning the benefit of using such a lens on a high MP 35mm body. For me using a DSLR is about flexibility and speed. I want good zooms and good AF and good high iso and combining these will often require VR. I did not say that you need VR to get the most out of the lens...rather out of the body...

If I need to focus manually I want to be able to SEE it through the finder. If I need to change the focusing screen every time I change a lens then I'm loosing another benefit of DSLR, but that's just me I guess...

As a friendly comment Fred If you want to be taken seriously you should read others' posts before you fill up the page with yours...